A UN official delivers a speech. An account of that speech is written up to look like a news story. It gets published on a website funded by the UN. Casual readers are unlikely to appreciate that this is 100% spin.

Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.

The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?

Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.

An activist group has been funding a particular corner of scientific research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than two decades. Do we really think this hasn’t influenced how those working in that field see the world?

A year ago a group of volunteers from 12 countries struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. Our audit revealed that 1 in 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report references are to non-peer-reviewed literature. For years we’ve been told the climate bible relies exclusively on peer-reviewed research.

When environmentalists organize themselves, fund-raise, and try to spread their message this is considered legitimate democratic activity. Yet the minute climate skeptics do the same we’re accused of being doubt-mongers who manufacture uncertainty in order to mislead the public.

The UK’s Royal Society awarded an Esso Energy medal annually for 25 years. A short time later, when opinions on climate change diverged, the society began painting Esso’s parent company, ExxonMobil, as demon spawn.

It is frequently alleged that climate skeptics are being funded by big oil – and that their views should therefore not be trusted. In fact, green groups have received far more funding from oil interests. Really.

Skeptical climate scientists are often accused of being motivated by financial gain. So why does Al Gore charge $175,000 to deliver a speech? If global warming is really a planetary emergency, why won’t he deliver the same talk for $50,000?